A record 22,717 apply to the Harvard College

Colleges and Universities A-Z Harvard University
141

<p>
[quote]
Oh, so Harvard didn't outrank Stanford cuz you don't like the ranking?

[/quote]
</p>

<p>LOL! Geez! I am not into picking up silly catfight. I am just giving you what a typical fan would think (if you don't belive me, try to start a thread like "Harvard outrank Minnesota/NC State/Stanford" on ESPN and see what kind of response you'll get from the fans); yes, the computer polls ranked Harvard higher than Stanford (I never deny it). After all, it's 11-0, so it can't drop too far down based on the model. But until Ivy League/Harvard starts playing some games against Div-1A team and pick up couple wins there (I doubt that would happen in near future), they would never prove itself. That James Madison and William & Mary (#1 and #4 in Div 1-AA) were spanked by West Virgina and North Carolina (UNranked in D-1A) certainly doesn't help convince people like me that Div-1AA is competitive. That's what I was trying to say. Human poll and computer poll don't seem to match these days and lately, human polls had looked more credible. </p>

<p>Stanford's athletes have lower SAT scores but not "ridiculously" low. If you look at athletes' profiles on Stanford's page, you'll realize a lot of them were very good students also in HS with quite a few being valedictorians. The adcom does look at all of the recruits' academic records seriously and it has consistently rejected prized recruits that most other schools competed for rigorously. Their grad rate is on par with the rest of the student body, until many others where the difference is often huge.</p>

142

<p>
[quote]
IMHO, this is one reason why Stanford has not been accorded an academic rank to which it is otherwise more than entitled - this unfortunate mixture of professionalism and the amateur ideal in sport.

[/quote]

Yet another clear violation by Byerly of Occam's razor. The sole reason "why Stanford has not been accorded an academic rank to which it is otherwise more than entitled" is that it's not on the East Coast.</p>

143

<p>If you are above "catfights" why are you scratching and yowling Sam!</p>

<p>And to both you and Mensa, I say that if Stanford's SAT median were not chronically depressed (and it has nothing to do with the location, which actually gives Stanford many recruiting advantages) that it would be close to the top of the USNews rankings with great regularlity.</p>

<p>Both Stanford and Duke suffer a bit from the debasement of the student body, and the compromise of academic values, associated with the decision to rely on paid performers to represent the school in athletic contests. (And don't try and avoid this undeniable truth with the usual anactodal evidence of the "lineman who has a 4.0 average" etc.)</p>

144

<p>By "catfight", I meant putting statements like the one you did when the other person has already discussed with reasons. But if you consider debating against your position with sound arguments as "scratching and yowling", that's your problem of taking things too personally.</p>

145

<p>Please raise all the "sound arguments" you wish. You were the one who used the word "catfight", not me. As I understand your explanation, this meant that you disagree with me (which is ok) and that you think my position is "unsound" (which is also OK) - but I do get the idea that sneering about "catfights" etc. was evidence that you - not me - are getting a bit testy and "taking things too personally."</p>

<p>I thinks Stanford's reputation would be enhanced if it didn't spend $12,000,000 a year on "athletic scholarships". You obviously don't. Well, you gotta RIGHT, brother!</p>

146

<p>
[quote]
I thinks Stanford's reputation would be enhanced if it didn't spend $12,000,000 a year on "athletic scholarships".

[/quote]

This is merely a "lesser included" of the gross offense of allowing coaches to pick almsot 20% of the class at HYP et al.</p>

147

<p>
[quote]
Oh, so Harvard didn't outrank Stanford cuz you don't like the ranking?

[/quote]
</p>

<p>That's what you posted. You can attack my arguments and said why they weren't valid. I would have evaluated that and provided the feedback. Instead you left little room of discussion by questioning my objectivity right at the beginning. I really don't believe Harvard football team is better than Stanford and it's not because I went there but because of the huge gap between major D-1A conferences and and D-1AA including Ivy League (as shown by the margin of victory by unranked D-1A teams over highly ranked Div-1AA teams). I wouldn't question the validity of the computer ranking if I truly believe Harvard could beat Stanford.</p>

148

<p>
[quote]
I thinks Stanford's reputation would be enhanced if it didn't spend $12,000,000 a year on "athletic scholarships". You obviously don't.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>LOL! Where did I even talk about Stanford's reputation in relation to athletic scholarships? This is getting really weird...lol!</p>

149

<p>Lol! Lol!</p>

<p>"The adcom does look at all of the recruits' academic records seriously and it has consistently rejected prized recruits that most other schools competed for rigorously. Their grad rate is on par with the rest of the student body, until many others where the difference is often huge." - Sammy</p>

150

<p>oooh yet another fight, these can be so entertaining sometimes</p>

151

<p>for those who are deeply passionate about sports rankings.</p>

152

<p>Netshark2005 wrote, </p>

<p>
[quote]
And we all know that to a great degree, the SAT tests how well you take the test, rather than the material itself (prove me wrong).

[/quote]
</p>

<p>I'm surprised there hasn't been more response to this. I'll respond this way: even if what you suppose is true, that the SAT tests how well you take the test, WHY DIDN'T YOU TAKE IT WELL? If what the SAT tests is mostly a very limited body of knowledge (i.e., knowledge of how to score well on the SAT I and nothing more), then it is still a useful test for distinguishing people by learning ability, because it is manifest that some people learn how to score well on the SAT I, and many do not. As you said, prove me wrong. :)</p>

153

<p>Byerly: re your mention of Stanford not getting the ranking it deserves, I presume you are referring to USNWR. I think that reflects more discredit on USNWR than S. As you know, to Harvard and Yale, Stanford is the competition. The "revealed preference" ranking, to my mind the most revealing of lists, goes H, Y, S. I believe that most in academia would find little to quarrel with there. Duke is an interesting case of a school with a para-professional athelete class that seems to do particularly well in USNWR.</p>

154

<p>Harvard has, in recent years, had a larger cross-applicant pool with Stanford than with any other school - including Yale. And although Harvard takes the lion's share of those cross admits, Stanford does better against Harvard than any other elite save MIT (with which, presumably, the cross-admit pool is more science-oriented.)</p>

<p>I note that in the Gallup poll, in which Harvard is named as "America's best college" by the largest number of those surveyed, Stanford is a clear second.</p>

<p>In the current USNews rankings, Stanford and Duke are tied for #5, with Duke, MIT and Caltech, behind HYPP. It has not always been thus. In 1998, Duke tied Yale at #3. In 1992, Stanford was #3 ahead of Princeton, and in 1991 and 1990 Stanford was #2 behind Harvard. Indeed, in the "stone age" period of the 1980s, when the USNews ranking was only a reputational survey, USNews had Stanford #1 at least once.</p>

<p>Why it has languished in recent years is not entirely clear to me, although the answer must lie in the formula, and the way other schools have responded to it more successfully. Certainly Penn has famously striven to improve itself in particular categories so as to improve its ranking. MIT and Caltech have inched upwards as the formula was tweeked to recognize the significance of research opportunities for undergrads. </p>

<p>Stanford does seem to lag (relatively) in % of alumni contributing - a marker for "student satisfaction - and in faculty salaries, % of students in the top 10% of their graduating class, and has a lower SAT median than you might expect. I think they are hurt - as is Duke - by compromises made with academic standards in order to support a bigtime athletic program. This is a conscious choice of course. Despite having higher standards than the Florida States or the Louisana Techs, Duke and Stanford DO admit scores of athletic scholarship candidates who would not pass muster in the Ivy League.</p>

<p>So while others may disagree, I think Stanford's (and Duke's) commitment to bigtime athletics have hurt their academic standing just enough to cost them 2 or 3 steps on the USNews ladder. Others have had more room for scholars, and USNews does not incorporate the Sears Cup rankings.</p>

155

<p>My very simplified approach to the Stanford vs East Coast Establishment schools discussion.</p>

<p>Stanford is near parity with Harvard and Yale as a Liberal Arts College.
Stanford is argueably the best or equal to the best in the Hard Sciences.
Stanford is near parity with MIT for Engineering.
Stanford runs a Big League sports program and often has Nationally-ranked teams in the popular spectator sports of Baseball, Basketball and , sometimes, Football.
Stanford is at or near parity for Professional schools--Business, Law, Med</p>

<p>All in all , not bad for a young school growing up in the wild west.</p>

<p>Looking at the totality, I don't think Stanford can be benchmarked against the "Old Money" schools on the East Coast. It's in a different category altogether; and for many it is "different better." </p>

<p>And, in the end, could any reasonable person say someone "went wrong" by going to Harvard, Princeton, Stanford, Yale, etc., etc.??</p>

156

<p>I live in California and one of my best friend who goes to Stanford is always telling me about all the great things it has to offer. </p>

<p>And you know what? </p>

<p>I STILL HATE IT!!! :D</p>

<p>DEATH TO THE PRESUMPTUOUS SCHOOL IN MALO FALTO WHICH LOOOOOVES TO WASTE HIGH SCHOOL SENIOR'S VALUABLE TIME BY REFUSING TO HONOR THE COMMON APPLICATION!!!</p>

157

<p>Stanford is getting a little long in tooth to be asking for special dispensation on account of its "youth", and that "old money" vs "new money" stuff is getting to be an outworn cliche as well. </p>

<p>Look, at the turn of the century (from the 19th to the 20th) Stanford had the biggest endowment in American education. And the money behind it - oil, railroads, land speculation - all qualifies as "old money" today.</p>

<p>Make the case for Stanford - and there is a case to be made (particularly if you see the excessive attention devoted to "bigtime" sports, with mega-millions paid out in "athletic scholarships" as a plus, not a minus.)</p>

<p>But lets hear no more of this silly "young school in the wild west" vs "old money schools on the east coast" talk. Stanford is just as much a grizzled veteran of the educational "establishment" as anybody else. Can't get away with playing the ingenue parts any more.</p>

158

<p>OK. No problem.</p>

<p>Stanford is near parity with Harvard and Yale as a Liberal Arts College.
Stanford is argueably the best or equal to the best in the Hard Sciences.
Stanford is near parity with MIT for Engineering.
Stanford runs a Big League sports program and often has Nationally-ranked teams in the popular spectator sports of Baseball, Basketball and , sometimes, Football.
Stanford is at or near parity for Professional schools--Business, Law, Med</p>

<p>Looking at the totality, I don't think Stanford can be benchmarked against the schools on the East Coast. It's in a different category altogether; and for many it is "different better." </p>

<p>And, in the end, could any reasonable person say someone "went wrong" by going to Harvard, Princeton, Stanford, Yale, etc., etc.??</p>

159

<p>
[quote]
I note that in the Gallup poll, in which Harvard is named as "America's best college" by the largest number of those surveyed, Stanford is a clear second

[/quote]
</p>

<p>If you mean among the general public, Stanford is not a "clear" second; it is tied with Yale in second place. But it is clearly second to H, which I suppose is what you meant. </p>

<p>Harvard University 24%
Stanford University 11
Yale University 11</p>

<p>But among college graduates with at least some post-graduate education, which Gallup says "might be expected to know better than others what schools are prestigious, given that they applied to schools at least twice (for undergraduate and graduate work) and most likely spent a good deal of time evaluating schools:"</p>

<p>Harvard 29% </p>

<p>Stanford 27</p>

<p>Yale 14</p>

<p>MIT 11</p>

<p>Berkeley 7</p>

<p>Princeton 7</p>

<p>Michigan 7</p>

<p>Given that the sampling error is +-3%, H and Stanford are in a statististical dead heat among those who know a diploma from a hole in the ground.</p>

<p>Note howver that poll asks what is the best college OR university in the nation. It is not limited to college. Harvard's lead could well be less if only the quality of undergraduate education were assessed.On the other hand, I doubt that the average adult american could tell Gallop the difference betwenn a college and a University. In another poll, Only about a third of Americans believe that Charles Darwin's theory of evolution is a scientific theory that has been well supported by the evidence.</p>

160

<p>So.... after peeing on every tree in the yard to mark your territory, I take it you agree with me?</p>